Against LSM's Allegorizing

[OBW]

I'm impressed. This "little" work takes on a core theological construct of Witness Lee. They are beginning openly do more than question where the LSM and the BBs have taken Lee since his death. Now even Lee is subject to question.

I wsh I could get my dad to actually read this thing. It will probably be too much to take in at one time. But it is a profound word to be coming from within what is still theoretically the LRC (even if no longer assiciated with the LSM).

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by OBW

I'm impressed. This "little" work takes on a core theological construct of Witness Lee. They are beginning openly do more than question where the LSM and the BBs have taken Lee since his death. Now even Lee is subject to question.

I wsh I could get my dad to actually read this thing. It will probably be too much to take in at one time. But it is a profound word to be coming from within what is still theoretically the LRC (even if no longer assiciated with the LSM).

Wish Ohio were around to comment on this. I thought Nigel Tomes had several articles openly questioning some of Lee's teachings? (ex.: the curse of Canaan/Ham, etc.).

[Ohio]

Nigel Tomes' recent article is quite an eye-opener. Having only read the first two pages, I can already see how manipulating allegorical hermeneutics can be. It reigned supreme throughout the dark ages, and the hallmark of the reformation was its rejection. These facts alone casts huge shadows upon LSM's liberal approach to scripture.

I began in the Recovery many years ago with the tenet of "coming back to the pure word of God." Being raised Catholic, and attending 12 years of parochial education, 97.6349% of what I had learned was man-made tradition. Leaving centuries of stale tradition sounded real good to me and that new life within me. Eventually, however, the ministry of WL changed for the worse, leaving the "pure word" and introducing speculative allegorical interpretations at every turn. Yes, WL changed.

Now, I'm not against every allegory, and I doubt Nigel Tomes is either. The Apostle Paul allegorically connected Hagar to Mount Sanai and probably suffered immensely for this at the hands of the Jewish zealots. What I am against is the use of allegories in order to manipulate and lord it over the flock of God. For LSM to hold meetings in Toronto concerning "replastering the house of lepers," qualifies to me as manipulation of the worst sort.

And I have 20 more pages to read ...

[ZNPaaneah]

Think how insidiously deceptive this is. You create this whole alternative reality universe that you are working in and it gives the the impression that you are more spiritual and scriptural than other Christian groups.

Teachings should be built on a solid foundation, and according to the Lord, and the apostle Paul the solid foundation for the church is the revelation of Jesus Christ. Clearly that revelation should begin with the gospels and the epistles. The allegories should be interior decorating.

Teaching that you can base your truths on allegories is really irresponsible and just one more example of how the LSM has left WN's teaching in the book "The Ministry of the Word".

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Think how insidiously deceptive this is. You create this whole alternative reality universe that you are working in and it gives the the impression that you are more spiritual and scriptural than other Christian groups.

Allegorical interpretation should be considered the "fuel" to propel the tour bus of exclusivism and elitism. What was so often advertized as "fresh and new light from the ministry," was little more than speculative allegory to maintain an aura of greatness out in Anaheim.

I had to chuckle at Nigel Tomes ironical expression in this quote from page 4, "Since W. Lee excelled in allegorical exposition perhaps he should be designated the "Allegorizer of the Age." This tinge of sarcasm is perhaps the first I have noticed in his writings, and no doubt it will be noticed by "others."

This paper by Tomes goes to the root of LSM's publishing empire. By exposing their addiction to allegorical interpretations of scripture, the very motivation of exclusivism is removed. As a long time adherent of LSM, I know first hand how their teachings were designed to continually fuel the illusion, "we see things other Christians don't see."

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

As a long time adherent of LSM, I know first hand how their teachings were designed to continually fuel the illusion, "we see things other Christians don't see."

Special omniscience. That's what it should be called.

It's like a hot line to God that no one else has.

It's a ridiculous claim ...

If you fall for it you are a fool.

I know. I fell for it.

[Guest2]

Thanks for the information.

I went through a bit of it and will all of it at some point.

I know LSMers take the allegory figuratively speaking to the extreme.

However the bible does speak figuratively such as many of the parables Jesus taught.

Or the parable of the sheep and goats.

Being a Christian I am familiar with the parables in the Bible. But went I went to the local churches home meeting I was surprised at how many MORE parables and figurative messages they were drawing from the verses.

Correct me if Im wrong but a prime example that I just witnessed yesterday is.

Jesus is a greater Jonah.

They attributed Jonahs time spent in the fish as Jesus spent in "hades". Therefore Jesus is the greater jonah. Fine could be true but that sounds like reading too much into the text.

To me thats like saying God is a greater Jericho wall because they both took 7 days.

I often find their allegories don't really do anything for me.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Ohio

What I am against is the use of allegories in order to manipulate and lord it over the flock of God. For LSM to hold meetings in Toronto concerning "replastering the house of lepers," qualifies to me as manipulation of the worst sort.

That's one example. Another is rebuilding the wall in book of Nehemiah.

One excerpt from Nigel's writing that has helped me is the distinction between allegory and typology.

"Typology vs. Allegory: Thirdly, we distinguish types from allegories. The Dictionary for Theological Interpretation states, Typology is not to be confused with allegory…The actual history of the biblical story is unimportant for [allegory]. But in typology interpreting history is essential…The original historical event is the ‘type’ and the later corresponding event is the ‘antitype’ that parallels, perhaps fulfills and sometimes even transcends the type.” It also says, “The difference between typology and allegory is that the former [typology] attaches additional meaning to the text that is accepted as having a valid meaning in the ‘literal’ sense, whereas the latter [allegory] ignores the literal sense and may deny its usefulness altogether.” Dr. G. Lampe says, “Allegory differs radically from…typology which rests upon…actual historical fulfillment. The reason…is simply that allegory takes no account of history.” Note that, [1] typology is distinct from allegory. [2] To reject allegorizing need not imply rejecting typology. Our present focus is allegorical interpretation."

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Terry

That's one example. Another is rebuilding the wall in book of Nehemiah.

One excerpt from Nigel's writing that has helped me is the distinction between allegory and typology.

Terry, great point, but can you clean up that quote? Just delete those which carried over in your post.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Terry, great point, but can you clean up that quote? Just delete those which carried over in your post.

Ok did do. Does it read better?